The Political Thread

[IndigoPrime]

Jim: stop scaremongering with your *re-reads post* reality and facts!

[Theblazeuk]

What Indigo said. Anything else I write would be a bit angry as the blithe stupidity of "stop faffing about and get on with it" really drokking drives me insane and I understand that you're coming at the whole thing from an angle so far out of the box that it could be in the warehouse Jim is talking about, so it's not really relevant to what pisses me off.

You're not, for example, a group of people who make their vast sums of money entirely from the exact kind of invisible deals and arbitration that they dismiss as 'Faffing about'. 

[IndigoPrime]

Quite. "Let's just get on with instantly removing our entire trading infrastructure on 29 March" is the cry of disaster capitalists, massive but deluded optimists (the "everything will be fine" or "they won't let that happen" crowd) and those who are ignorant of the realities of modern trade within an internal market. It makes me furiously angry, because it's beyond reckless. As it stands, people will die. We're already hearing of medicine shortages – cancer treatments; insulin. This will get worse.

What happens then is anyone's guess, but a friend of my wife offered some insight from Russia about the notion of the new normal. This seems... worryingly prescient.

Russia under sanctions – govt limited food imports. On items disappearing: the thing is, it's not quite overnight, this sort of change. You get used to it, too. And when the cheese comes back, you don't directly compare its quality and price because of the gap. You are just pleased to see it.

On local produce: There were a rash of articles about Moscow based restaurants having a local food revolution.

On quality: Without a way to compare two things on a plate in front of you right now, people will notice, but it is the same once you are used to something, as actually being able to taste the difference right there and then.

Impact: It will be a very noticeable impact but I suspect that it will be of the sort that if you want to ignore it, you can. And you will then point to all the more extreme predictions and dismiss the whole phenomenon.

A lot of people will absorb it in the way the politicians are already preparing them for. No bananas for six months is entirely doable. Bonkers, given that it is entirely unnecessary, but doable, and the fact that in reappearance they also cost 50p each, the new normal.

I appreciate that not everyone will absorb the costs as well, but since society is already quite good at ignoring them, I do not think you will find headlines about chaos and so on. Articles about hardship, yes, but not screaming panicky headlines.

This is purely about food, of course. But then presumably people voted to have a radically compromised health service and a food economy closer in nature to the Eastern Bloc in 1970 than a modern European nation.

[Keef Monkey]

The medicine side of things is terrifying, my wife is a hospital pharmacist and from what I understand Brexit is going to be utterly catastrophic. I'd thought it would be a case of stockpiling medicines but apparently that wouldn't work because of the short shelf-life of a lot of treatments.

When something like that is looming with no plan in place to handle it, due to a situation we're bringing on ourselves and that could just be cancelled (it was after all just an advisory referendum which clearly stated there was no obligation to actually leave whatever the result), the attitude of 'just get on with it already' is maddeningly self-destructive.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I had hoped that after using the referendum to gauge the public feeling (as was its sole purpose seemingly) the government would then work to find the best solution, and if the best solution is to remain then that should be the outcome. Any public outcry about the supposed death of democracy that a reversal would signal would die down a lot quicker than the backlash to driving the whole country off a cliff on the say-so of some purposefully (and as we now know illegally) misinformed voters.

[Professor Bear]

Maybe I'm being naive, but I had hoped that after using the referendum to gauge the public feeling (as was its sole purpose seemingly) the government would then work to find the best solution,

Cameron already tried negotiating better terms with the EU, but because it was Cameron, he fucked it up.
To be fair, the UK already had a pretty sweet EU deal, wanting better terms despite being a glorified money laundering operation was just taking the piss.

I admittedly don't follow this very much because it smells like a huge pile of bullshit to me so I don't understand why a deal is needed anyway. The referendum, as far as I recall, was about leave or remain - not remain or partially leave (which is what leave with a deal seems to be).

Trade deals are needed because we have borders.  You can, technically, just ship something into a country and sell it directly to your customer, but then where does the government get its cut?  Taxing billionaires might be off the table, but taking a slice of Joe Schmoe's pie is how politicians' salaries get paid.

We have a country that voted leave and politicians who want to remain, so the politicians seem to be making a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing in order to bore or scare people into eventually remaining.

If you're wealthy enough to survive this comfortably and have the army to protect you, what's the downside to Brexit?  Why would you stop it?
From the point of view of the ideologically-committed capitalist, austerity was a huge success that led to the tripling of the incomes of top earners.  The bigger the disaster that Brexit is, the better, as it becomes an automatic sanction for the previously-unthinkable, such as selling off the NHS.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm sorry, IP, I must have misunderstood. When you said, "(W)e are used to seamless trade and the benefits that brings, even if we don't really understand the mechanics. And this extends to basically everything: fuel; food; even chemicals to ensure our water is clean," I assumed you meant that no deal would automatically destroy our ability to trade in these things.

So, the country will have a new base-line of WTO trade rules on which to build. I don't think that means this base-line will last forever or is even inevitable. Countries have been negotiating trade deals forever and will continue to do so.

As for "frictionless trading" - where does the friction come from? Is this not simply Brussels saying "toe the line or we will impose friction"? A threat, in other words?

Why would something like importing wine from Spain, for example, incur any more "friction" for a country outside the EU than in it if not for government bureaucracy applied simply so that it can be relieved when joining the club? It seems to me that all the down sides to leaving the EU are artificial problems that will be imposed as a punishment for - or a warning against - leaving the EU.

I'm happy to admit that I don't understand any of this foolishness. Why do we need a deal with the EU to trade with European countries?

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm sorry, IP, I must have misunderstood. When you said, "(W)e are used to seamless trade and the benefits that brings, even if we don't really understand the mechanics. And this extends to basically everything: fuel; food; even chemicals to ensure our water is clean," I assumed you meant that no deal would automatically destroy our ability to trade in these things.

So, the country will have a new base-line of WTO trade rules on which to build. I don't think that means this base-line will last forever or is even inevitable. Countries have been negotiating trade deals forever and will continue to do so.

As for "frictionless trading" - where does the friction come from? Is this not simply Brussels saying "toe the line or we will impose friction"? A threat, in other words?

Why would something like importing wine from Spain, for example, incur any more "friction" for a country outside the EU than in it if not for government bureaucracy applied simply so that it can be relieved when joining the club? It seems to me that all the down sides to leaving the EU are artificial problems that will be imposed as a punishment for - or a warning against - leaving the EU.

I'm happy to admit that I don't understand any of this foolishness. Why do we need a deal with the EU to trade with European countries?

I've edited your post for you to include only the salient point.

[The Legendary Shark]

Or the points you don't want to answer.

[Jim_Campbell]

Or the points you don't want to answer.

None of this stuff is a secret. I admire IP for taking the time to explain things as far as he has, but demanding people explain international trade from first principles because you, by your own admission, don't understand them but are still adopting a sceptical position... some people might suggest that was a little unreasonable.

[The Legendary Shark]

I understand how trade works, Jim. It's a fundamentally simple process.

What I don't understand is how leaving the EU alters those fundamentals in such catastrophic ways unless those catastrophic alterations are imposed as a punishment or disincentive.

Simply crossing out my thoughts and opinions does nothing to explain why a deal is needed. If the answer is "to avoid sanctions" then I'd find that a perfectly acceptable answer, even if it's a terrible thing to have to face. If you have another answer, I'm happy to consider it.

[JOE SOAP]

I don't believe that no deal means no trade. That makes no sense to me. Are European farmers going to refuse to trade with British markets because our servants in Westminster can't find a way of cutting their servants in Brussels into a piece of the profits? Is it going to become unlawful to trade with the UK? I very much doubt it.

Just as one example: you won't have the benefit of EU food regulations so the UK is free to import the cheapest of low quality foods undercutting local farmers/Producers while destroying their livelihoods, and the people's health, which puts more strain on the NHS. Hello Monsanto etc.

[The Legendary Shark]

Does that mean EU regulations are more humane than UK regulations? And does this mean that, no matter who you vote for, UK politicians have absolutely no regard for public health?

[JOE SOAP]

Does that mean EU regulations are more humane than UK regulations? And does this mean that, no matter who you vote for, UK politicians have absolutely no regard for public health?

There are degrees between no regard and less regard. One of the selling points of Brexit by Brexiteers is cheaper food. Cheaper food generally means less regulation of quality.

[IndigoPrime]

Cameron already tried negotiating better terms with the EU, but because it was Cameron, he fucked it up.

Not really. He got a deal that surprised a large number of people. The issue was that even if he'd brought back a moon on a stick, it wouldn't have been enough.

So, the country will have a new base-line of WTO trade rules on which to build. I don't think that means this base-line will last forever or is even inevitable. Countries have been negotiating trade deals forever and will continue to do so.

Seriously, go and read a bit. You're either being wilfully ignorant now, or are just taking the piss. Basic FTAs take about five to ten years to do, if you have competence – which the UK does not. Trade will not cease, as I've said, but throwing up borders means the frictionless nature of trade is gone. Because we do not have ports to deal with this, and our ENTIRE manufacturing and warehousing is based on JIT, we're basically fucked. We're not self-sufficient in food, for one thing; and we don't, for example, make insulin. So unless you're happy for people to go hungry and for diabetics to die, go and do a bit of reading.

As for "frictionless trading" - where does the friction come from? Is this not simply Brussels saying "toe the line or we will impose friction"? A threat, in other words?

Again, go and do some reading. This is trade 101, not something complicated. We are currently in a trade and customs union. When you move outside of such a union, a border goes up. That's it. This isn't the EU imposing anything on us. This is us deciding we want to leave a club, going "SHIT!" when we realise what the implications are, and then blaming the club for the decision we made.

I'm happy to admit that I don't understand any of this foolishness. Why do we need a deal with the EU to trade with European countries?

We don't. But we do if we want that trade to be frictionless. We do if we don't want lorries backed up for miles for customs checks. We do if we want to not obliterate the entire agri-food and manufacturing industries. We do if we want to retain the likes of Airbus.

We've already lost the EMA. It seems a lot of people won't be happy until we've lost everything, and can pretend we're scrappy little Britain after the war again, on rations, and dying of preventable diseases.

Seriously, though: devil's advocate is fine. But if you're going to march in talking like some far-right nutter from the ERG, I'm going to find it very difficult to respond again here, because this makes me furiously angry. Again, as politely and patiently as I can say this, go and read up on the single market and customs union, and understand what the ramifications are of leaving them both, without having put in place anything to deal with the changes.

One of the selling points of Brexit by Brexiteers is cheaper food. Cheaper food generally means less regulation of quality.

That was also one of the lies of Brexit. UK food is among the cheapest in the world – or, more accurately, we spend less per capita than comparable nations. Mostly, this is down to a mix of competition and availability, rather than cutting standards. Brexiters bang on erroneously about tariffs and being evil to ex-Commonwealth countries, even though the EU (perhaps against its better judgement) caved to the UK regarding ditching tariffs for the majority of that stuff anyway. From what I can tell, the main arguments now are that wine could be about 10p cheaper per bottle (although the govt is increasing taxes by about the same), and we could import meat and veg from the US, which has significantly lower standards than the EU.

Yum yum.

[sheridan]

Speaking as a Northern Ireland native, let me reassure all the mainland forum users that the Troubles weren't that bad.

Speaking as a 'legitimate target' during the troubles, I'm assuming that is ironic.

[also, what Army are they going to deploy?]

I think I was a legitimate target at the time.  I was about twelve or thirteen years old and lived within 20 miles of an army barracks in East Anglia.  Due to this I got caught up in a bomb scare while getting comics from the local town (didn't blow up thankfully).